In The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, the main agenda discussed in the novel and carried within its themes is the role of the government. The book supports the importance for maintaining political stability through principles and it acts as a counsel to political leaders. The sustenance of the government is a requirement of politicians to sustain at all costs for it to maintain its honor acquires riches and realize glory for the nation. It is in the ally of the state for through its leaders to maintain a status and to achieve power and secure its goods.
For greatness, a leader must be prepared to go against the conventional prudence to earn greatness for the nation while the public must be ready to accept the existence of no conventional morality in its maxims. The prudence of a prince lies in his preparedness to stay consistent to state projects as a political art (Barnet and Hugo 2-99).
Leaving the republic to the hands of the political princes demeans the state from democracy. It is a source of dictatorship, which undermines the principals of the nation. This is regardless of the power the prince may use in handling state activities. At the same time, this allows for a breach of prudence and places a state in a compromising situation full of immoral activities because of the power exuded by the political princes.
There is no ideal notion as to the need for a powerful and great leader if things can be done within the constructs of the law. Actually, even Machiavelli himself does not make and conclusive proof that he is for a powerful leader and that means that it is a concept that even he does not fully vouch for to be the absolute means for ruling a state. The notion is more practical than ideal since the good of the government is a state that can only be achieved in an ideal world.
In reality, a powerful government is not effective to any state since authoritarian rule and mere focus on power is not the best means for ruling a nation. In the efforts of advising Lorenzo and helping him to be the most powerful prince in the Florentine period, he focuses on the best means for the prince to gain power. This is so un republic and inconsiderate of the consequences such maintenance of power by a ruler can have on a country (Mattern 195).
The best led country is the one that balances both the fortune and virtue where there is exploration of shrewdness through skills for acquisition of opportunities. This allows the prince to use outside sources to gain power and take control of situations to conduct immoral businesses. Such hiring of outsiders to help with immoral duties allows the leader to survive fortune as a victim and comes to power through criminal activities not necessarily accounted on them without means of injuring their reputation for their cruelty.
Leaders are at time forced to make the decision of acting cruelly and finding ways for concealing their guilt or else, “a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times must fall to ruin among so many who are not good” (Machiavelli and Peter 126). This is contrary to a virtuous leader and stays in connection to the needs of his subjects and does everything possible to have them love him instead of fear him in any way.
The virtuoso leader then has the need of to “learn not to be good.” This is most important when there is a fortune that it could be bad. There is the need for going against the normal requirements by committing crimes and being politically advantageous through exploitation of the statuses using personal powers. However, a leader learning not to be too good when it is necessary, must be careful about not being bad in the eyes of his subjects in avoidance of negative implications for hatred. The concealing of bad behavior is to preserve the political advancement behind the cultivation of a “goodness” reputation with the only notion of looking good and no need for being good.
The lessons as put by Machiaveli, “Whereby it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use it [goodness] or not according to necessity (126),” go against the moral constructs of leadership. The call for strategizing and preparation for breaking the laws in a manner that does not conform to persecution gives unnecessary power and conquest of situations, which only lead to a chain of immorality since there is also the claim of training on the emulation of the behaviors of past successful men regardless of their characters. This leaves the leaders with the senseless decisions holding personal interests at the top against the interests of the people.
There are ample evidences of immoral input from Machiavelli in his book, The Prince. In his opinion, the end is a justification of the means since there is the notion that there is no capacity for judging political decisions especially when situation limits it as the process of protecting a notion. However, it is clear that there are certain political conducts that can face ethical questioning especially if powerful leaders overlook judicial constraints. Very powerful leaders project the public into cruelty and immorality. It is not always adequate to weaken adversaries and having spies in other territories as a means of staying up to date with any dangers they may present.
Strong state governments survive through oppression from their rulers and as the author states, it makes them easy to rule because oppression is the order of the day in their territories and a leader would expect very little resistance and revolts. This is contrary to the ease of conquering a republic and ruling it for a new ruler. The process of destruction of a conquered republic for rebuilding in the hands of an authoritative ruler brings with it so much pain to the republicans as they have to learn to stay in conformity to the new rules of the ruler.
However, at time, there is a crucial necessity for leaders to be disobedient against the law whenever they are performing some civil duties. Being civil means that there is the maintenance of the community in political unity through the sharing of a common good and being in accordance to justice and the constitution through the acceptance of the rule of law as the binding aspect for the community. There are certain laws that are wrong and go against the fundamental principalities and interests of the people in unity.
There are occasions when political leaders break the law in prudent allegiance, which is against the law and constitutional institutions. There is the claim of attending to matters of agency when breaking the law and this follows failed efforts for changing the laws through legal means. There is no resistance in cases of arrest and pleas in court are eventually made with the hope that people would see the sense in the decisions they made. It is through civic courage that such practices occur by taking risk for the good of the community and that may be understandable as it works in the preservation of the unity of the community.
A case when leaders have made decisions by learning to be good as put by Machavelli is such as when there have been presidential powers eavesdropping and torturing people regardless of the immorality it contains. The emergencies held by presidents go against set laws and legislations through the consideration of the inadequacies they present in the moments. For example, Jefferson in provisioning the navy for their atrocities was with the recognition that the public servants need to admit that holding to the principles of welfare at time surpass the principalities of the written law. This allowed the forgiveness of an officer who breached the law in the Chesapeake affair evading persecution for the moral risk through faith in the public.
This is similar to the surveillance following the 9/11 terrorist attack through a presidential call where there was open declaration as much as the act was going to breach the secrecy of other territories. Holding such surveillance and ordering the torture of suspects broke the law and the interpretation of the presidential authority remained as a mockery of the constitution by the Bush administration. These highhanded acts take place through the notion that the orders of a president are under the role of commander in chief and always lawful (Major 12).
Works Cited
Barnet, Sylvan, and H. A. Bedau. Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s. (2011): 1-99. Print.
Major, Mark. Where Do We Go from Here? American Democracy and the Renewal of the Radical Imagination. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books. (2010): 12. Print.
Machiavelli, Niccolò, and P. Constantine. The Prince. New York: The Modern Library. (2008): 126. Print.
Mattern, Mark. Putting Ideas to Work: A Practical Introduction to Political Thought. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. (2006): 195. Print.